1. Comparative study of languages The use of phraseological units

Plan:
1.Comparative study of languages
2. The use of phraseological units
3. Functional and syntactic characteristics of phraseological units
This work considers the comparative study of languages in order to identify their national and cultural specifics. The choice of phraseological units for self-study work is explained not only by their widespread use in everyday life, but also by the fact that they are expressive, figurative, and vividly reflect the peculiarities of the spiritual and material life of the people. The study of the mechanisms of the emergence and use of phraseological units in the English and Uzbek languages contributes to the identification of the features of verbal thinking of native speakers, tk. it is in phraseology that the tangible objective and sensory-emotional world of a person is most vividly reflected.
Comparison of phraseology should answer the following questions: what are the similarities and differences between the phraseological and systems of the English and Uzbek languages; how they manifest themselves in the main aspects of the language; what intralingual and extralinguistic factors they are determined by, what is the degree of interlingual equivalence of somatic phraseological units. Features of the comparative study of phraseological composition are primarily due to the special position of the phraseological system among other linguistic systems. "Phraseologisms are units of secondary education that differ from ordinary complexes in low regularity of linguistic organization, based on a semantic shift of one type or another and leading to mandatory reproducibility of phraseological units and poor predictability of their content plan relative to the expression plan, and vice versa" [Reichshtein 1980: 87].
According to its formal structure, phraseological units are verbal complexes. Functionally and semantically, they correlate with verbal complexes or with words. PU always have functional and syntactic characteristics and corresponding morphological features. Thus, the phraseological system is based on the means of other levels of the language and is built from them. First of all, these are lexical and grammatical means.
The specificity of phraseology is that it, to a greater or lesser extent, reflects all the main features of other levels of the language. Hence the peculiarity of comparative
phraseological analysis - the need to take into account the primary systems - lexical and grammatical, as well as the specifics of their manifestation in phraseology. So, the verb category of the species is absent in English and Uzbek: turn smb's head - boshini aylantirmoq. In turn, in Uzbek there is no grammatical category of noun definiteness / indefiniteness, expressed with the systemic article: an eye for an eye – boshga-bosh.
Means of other levels are not reproduced mechanically in a phraseological system, but undergo complex processing. Being a part of phraseological units, lexemes, syntactic schemes and morphological means undergo significant limitations of their regular paradigmatic or syntagmatic changeability. Additional difficulties arise, since these restrictions are not the same for different phraseological units. For example, the fixity of the article in the following English phraseological unit: "poor as a church mouse", but the possibility of its regular replacement in certain PU: "put on a / the face of smth.” The next feature of comparative analysis in phraseology is that phraseological units are more complex than their constituents-lexemes both in structure and in meaning. The specificity of comparing the phraseology of different-system languages, including English and Uzbek, at the level of specific languages is not based on the material identity of the units being compared. For different system languages, the interlingual material identity of phraseological units turns out to be a rare phenomenon associated with the borrowing of phraseological units from one compared language to another or from any third language into both compared ones.
Comparison of specific phraseological units provided researchers with material forgeneralizations in various directions: in the theory of translation, in the theory ofphraseography, in comparative typological studies. All these studies are based on various aspects of the interlingual correlation of specific phraseological units, i.e. the identity of their semantic or formal-semantic organization. The absence of this correlation means a complete difference of phraseological units. Along with the relations of complete identity and complete difference, there are intermediate steps that can be generalized as relations of incomplete identity. The relationship of identity, incomplete identity and difference can, according to Reichstein, manifest in the following [1, p. 88]:
1) in some aspects of their formal-semantic organization, mainly lexical and structuralsyntactic (aspect correlation);
2) in their aggregate content (functional and semantic correlation).
The comparative characteristic of phraseological units also has a quantitative aspect - the number of equivalents in a particular phraseological unit, their comparative use. Aspect correlation of phraseological units, i.e. the correlation of their component composition and grammatical organization, for English and languages, has only an indirect, structural and semantic character, since for unrelated languages, the direct material identity of lexical components and grammatical structures is not typical. The functional-semantic correlation of phraseological units of different languages means, ideally, the identity of a lot of composition and additional connotations in the aggregate content of the compared phraseological units. The combination of aspect and functional-semantic identity gives full interlingual phraseological equivalents. For example: а heart of stone ‒ tosh yurak. If only an abstract figurative model unites phraseological units in the languages under consideration, then their aggregate functional-semantic correlation loses its character, since according to such an abstract model, a number of phraseological units with a similar meaning can be formed. When only the abstract figurative model coincides, the functional-semantic correlation of phraseological units is usually incomplete. Interlanguage aspect correlation of phraseological units and their functional-semantic correlation are not directly dependent on each other. Their relationship is subject to the general provision on the asymmetry of the signifying and signified linguistic sign.
Differences in the aggregate phraseological meaning with the aspect identity of the compared phraseological units of the English and Uzbek languages may be the result of multidirectional rethinking. Another reason may be the appearance of additional semantic shades against the background of an identical common meaning. For example: positively colored English phraseological unit keep one's chin up (do not hang your nose, keep a stiff upper lip) can be translated into Uzbek to turn up your nose, which carries a negative connotation (to assume importance, to behave arrogantly).
Undoubtedly, with a closer examination of the compared phraseological units, a number of other semes can be distinguished, and when comparing units according to different characteristics, it is likely that equivalence criteria can be obtained. Such pairs of phraseological units with more or less diverging, and sometimes even opposite meanings act as "false friends of the translator" in the sphere of phraseology. With a more differentiated analysis of aspect and functional-semantic correlation between specific phraseological units of the English and Russian languages, the following types of interlingual relations are found [2, p. 67]:
1) identity, i.e. complete coincidence of aspect organization and aggregate meaning;
2) lexical variance or structural synonymy, i.e. complete coincidence of the aggregate meaning and syntactic organization with incomplete identity of the component composition;
3) ideographic synonymy, i.e. regardless of aspect identity, incomplete identity of the aggregate significative meaning due to the presence of special semantic features in both phraseological units;
4) hyper-hyponymy, i.e. irrespective of the aspectual identity, the incomplete identity of the aggregate significative value due to the presence of additional, concretizing semantic features in one of the compared phraseological units;
5) stylistic synonymy, i.e. incomplete identity of the aggregate meaning due to differences in stylistic meaning;
6) antonymy and polysemy, i.e. the identity of the aspectual organization with greater or lesser differences in the aggregate sense; enantiosemia, i.e. the identity of the aspectual organization with the opposite of the aggregate meaning.
If phraseological units are polysemantic, then each phraseosemantic variant enters into the corresponding relationship. The next aspect of interlingual correlation - quantitative
- includes the following characteristics:
1) the comparative use of the correlated phraseological units in the supplied languages;
2) the number of phraseological units - equivalents in both languages for expressing one or another meaning;
3) the number of phraseological units - equivalents and their share in the phraseological systems of the compared languages as a whole. The measure of the speech use of phraseological units is a quantitative feature reflecting the relative frequency of a given phraseological unit in comparison with the average frequency of all phraseological units of a given language in speech. Distinguish between high-, medium - and low frequency PU. Interlingual phraseological equivalence assumes approximately the same speech use of phraseological units. Each phraseological unit has no more than one full structural and semantic equivalent in the compared language. The number of incomplete structural and semantic equivalents and functional semantic equivalents fluctuates in a fairly wide range. The presence or absence of structural and semantic equivalents in the compared languages can be predicted by some characteristics of the phraseological units of the source language themselves. These characteristics relate to the component composition, syntactic structure, semantic and formal mechanism-phraseological and cumulative stylistic properties of phraseological units. Thus, phraseological units have increased interlingual equivalence, since among them there are many units that are common in terms of figurative orientation, which is due not only to borrowings and the universal nature of the transfer of lexemes, but also to the generality of extralinguistic factors.

Reference

1.Reichstein A.D. On interlingual comparison of phraseological units of German and Russian languages // Foreign languages at school. - №4. 1979.
2. Reichstein A.D. On the comparison of phraseological systems // Foreign languages at school. - №4. 1960.